TRUE BELIEVER APPEAL PROCESS AND POLL

[Sanctorum]

Welcome back TB. I thought that the ban imposed upon you was a joke, just like the one day ban I copped around the same time.

As the missus said, someone "being a bit precious are we" and she is pretty insightful.

But the real villains are the vicious, vengeful posters who reported said posts, not Simon FFS.

And yes, I posted the bit about Big Footy quoted by you and I make no apologies for stating what I believe to be the truth.

I would much rather have Simon run things than some of the posters agitating to overthrow him or get a bigger say in how the place is run. At least Simon is impartial, unlike said agitators.

From memory , according to the poll 7 or 8 posters voted to keep you banned. I haven't a f****** clue what their problem is if it wasn't political. Yeah, I know I'm swearing , just like most people do in the real world.

End of my rant and as I said at the start, welcome back mate.

While I considered what TB posted was out of order I supported his reinstatement following the appeal process instigated by Simon.

If correct, I agree that it was not acceptable practice for TB not to be notified of his permanent ban.

In this regard, I am in favour of greater transparency of the banning process - "justice must be seen to be done".

I't's probably not a bad idea to have a open discussion on how the moderators/administrators deal with reports of objectionable material published on this forum.

As far as I'm concerned this forum is vastly improved compared to when I first joined in 2004 and I can't work out how removing some of the rules and policies noted by Simon (which I expect he would have instituted in consultation with others) will actually make it a better or more user-friendly place.

[Dis Believer]

Welcome back TB. I thought that the ban imposed upon you was a joke, just like the one day ban I copped around the same time.

As the missus said, someone "being a bit precious are we" and she is pretty insightful.

But the real villains are the vicious, vengeful posters who reported said posts, not Simon FFS.

And yes, I posted the bit about Big Footy quoted by you and I make no apologies for stating what I believe to be the truth.

I would much rather have Simon run things than some of the posters agitating to overthrow him or get a bigger say in how the place is run. At least Simon is impartial, unlike said agitators.

From memory , according to the poll 7 or 8 posters voted to keep you banned. I haven't a f****** clue what their problem is if it wasn't political. Yeah, I know I'm swearing , just like most people do in the real world.

End of my rant and as I said at the start, welcome back mate.

While I considered what TB posted was out of order I supported his reinstatement following the appeal process instigated by Simon.

If correct, I agree that it was not acceptable practice for TB not to be notified of his permanent ban.

In this regard, I am in favour of greater transparency of the banning process - "justice must be seen to be done".

I't's probably not a bad idea to have a open discussion on how the moderators/administrators deal with reports of objectionable material published on this forum.

As far as I'm concerned this forum is vastly improved compared to when I first joined in 2004 and I can't work out how removing some of the rules and policies noted by Simon (which I expect he would have instituted in consultation with others) will actually make it a better or more user-friendly place.

Thank you for the support Sanctorum, some laudable statements there. I think where we would probably diverge on views is the timelines and the consultation. Around the 2004 time the place was humming (in my recollections), and although occasionally it may have been a touch rough and tumble, I don't recall there being any behaviour that I would have deemed unacceptable had it occurred in the real world in front of my wife and kids.

I think it was some years later round 2010-2012 sort of timeframe that things started going through significant issues, and I think even more recently than that were there has been repeat, ongoing issues. Although the more recent issues I think have been more exacerbated by a really small pool of posters (for example, a loudmouth causes more issues in a group of 5 than in a group of 35) than anything else.

The consultation is something I don't recall there being too much of, although I stand to be corrected on that (don't all memories seem just a little fuzzier with the passing of years!). The knock-on effect of the really small community that is left is also that, if I am correct, we are down to only one mod, whereas I think we had about 5 or 6 all those years ago, and that undoubtedly contributes to perceptions of what remains today. But I do have definite recollections of some push-back and angst from a considerable number of posters about changes being implemented and feeling that they had no input on the direction of the forum.

[saynta]

If I remember correctly we all at one stage were asked for our input on forum rules,

The current ones are far simpler and were drafted by Simon.

I don't have a problem with them as they have weeded out most of the arseholes,s*** stirrers and other trouble makers.

This forum isn't a democracy and I don't for the, life of me see why anyone else other than Simon should have any say in the direction the forum is heading.

To me it's a case of "don't like it then f*** off."

[Vortex]

Just a footnote to this ridiculous event.

If ever the SS community wanted to take over control of SS then all that is needed is for the community to register a Web address called saintsatuonal.com.au and come up with the very small funds required to run the site.

And Simon is booted out of tbe house.

It's that easy.

Exactly what is your problem with the conduct of this forum Vortex that causes you to drag your coat in such a provocative way and in effect slap Simon in the face??

I consider your inference "And Simon is booted out of the house" to be highly contemptuous and shameful.

I feel hurt by your negative comments.

If only that was true - the least you could do is apologise to Simon for your intemperance!

The least you could do is get yourself a history lesson before coming in hot and half cocked.

When it comes to the history of Saintsational Vortex, you have certainly featured prominently as I recall that you have been banned in the past under other nics, most recently Secret Kiel, only 12 months ago.

If you're really that disillusioned with the way this forum is moderated there's nothing stopping you from leaving and starting your own.

History is clearly not your thing aye!

[Dis Believer]

If I remember correctly we all at one stage were asked for our input on forum rules,

The current ones are far simpler and were drafted by Simon.

I don't have a problem with them as they have weeded out most of the arseholes,s*** stirrers and other trouble makers.

This forum isn't a democracy and I don't for the, life of me see why anyone else other than Simon should have any say in the direction the forum is heading.

To me it's a case of "don't like it then f*** off."

I am interested in why you believe that the future of this place should be entirely in the hands of one person? What gives that person the right to exclusive "ownership" of what is a chat group? As someone with an extensive legal background I am flabbergasted that you would believe that one person should be allowed to be judge, jury and executioner!

[saynta]

If I remember correctly we all at one stage were asked for our input on forum rules,

The current ones are far simpler and were drafted by Simon.

I don't have a problem with them as they have weeded out most of the arseholes,s*** stirrers and other trouble makers.

This forum isn't a democracy and I don't for the, life of me see why anyone else other than Simon should have any say in the direction the forum is heading.

To me it's a case of "don't like it then f*** off."

I am interested in why you believe that the future of this place should be entirely in the hands of one person? What gives that person the right to exclusive "ownership" of what is a chat group? As someone with an extensive legal background I am flabbergasted that you would believe that one person should be allowed to be judge, jury and executioner!

It was never a public forum. It was set up, as simon stated by a young guy who tipped all the money in.

He later had other competing interests. Melbourne Storm from memory, so he handed the keys and ownership over to Simon.

Around then, krabby wanted some of us to buy the forum. Never happened.

Simon's forum, so he is allowed to be all things. Judge, jury and executioner, as you put it.

If we don't like it , as I said in a previous post, we are free to f*** off.

It is not Facebook for f***'s sake.

You are only pissed because you told a very old joke and got called out.

I feel for you but the rules got you back in.

There are others on here that if they got control would not have been so accommodating

Simon does a f****** good job.

I may sound like a broken record but I am happy with the way things are.

[Dis Believer]

Thanks for the honest response Saynta. I think I should clarify, I am not "pissed" that I got "called out" for an old joke. But I do feel that what used to be a vibrant community has become the dwindling private domain of a single person, and arbitrary standards have been applied. As I said, I think perhaps being down to a single moderator does not help that, nor do I feel the process is the best it can be.

However I don't think the original creator of the site (was it AOK from memory) saw himself as "Owning" it, he simply registered the domain name and paid the hosting fees and I would think potentially occasional software upgrade costs. You are correct with the crowding of his time forcing him to have to move away from it, but I don't recall that he "sold" it to Simon. I think the entire community (certainly those that offered to contribute to the survival/upkeep of the site) were of the opinion that Simon was installed as the "caretaker", or curator of the place.

Anyhow, I'm probably getting off track on semantics.

[asiu]

Damien was the original creator

GrumpyOne was strong on the idea of
member ownership 'n community moderation

Krabbe might have offered to buy the site
... i'll ask her next time we chat

[asiu]

To me it's a case of "don't like it then f*** off."

there's a great list of names
that have done exactly that

isn't that the issue we are attempting to discuss

[saynta]

Thanks for the honest response Saynta. I think I should clarify, I am not "pissed" that I got "called out" for an old joke. But I do feel that what used to be a vibrant community has become the dwindling private domain of a single person, and arbitrary standards have been applied. As I said, I think perhaps being down to a single moderator does not help that, nor do I feel the process is the best it can be.

However I don't think the original creator of the site (was it AOK from memory) saw himself as "Owning" it, he simply registered the domain name and paid the hosting fees and I would think potentially occasional software upgrade costs. You are correct with the crowding of his time forcing him to have to move away from it, but I don't recall that he "sold" it to Simon. I think the entire community (certainly those that offered to contribute to the survival/upkeep of the site) were of the opinion that Simon was installed as the "caretaker", or curator of the place.

Anyhow, I'm probably getting off track on semantics.

We can agree to disagree, however it wasn't AOK and I never used the word "sold". I used your words,"Handed the keys",

Don't think I ever misunderstood SImon's role either, but peace brother,

[saynta]

If I remember correctly we all at one stage were asked for our input on forum rules,

The current ones are far simpler and were drafted by Simon.

I don't have a problem with them as they have weeded out most of the arseholes,s*** stirrers and other trouble makers.

This forum isn't a democracy and I don't for the, life of me see why anyone else other than Simon should have any say in the direction the forum is heading.

To me it's a case of "don't like it then f*** off."

Bump.

[asiu]

... "don't like it then f*** off."

[BackFromUSA]

I genuinely believe that this is an interesting discussion.

A few things

- I don't own Saintsational
- I am a caretaker only under the blessing of the owner
- The rules were done with community consultation and written based on the brief I received from the owner
- Before any sort of shutdown ever happened the keys to this place would be handed back to the original owner (he has a set anyway)

HOWEVER

There is nothing stopping us review the rules again.

We could do it quite systematically during the off season. Bit by bit we could debate each rule and alter it for the better or leave it.

We could also look again at what technological upgrades could be done to the site ... some I have proposed previously but were rejected.

FIRST THINGS FIRST

This is the greatest question of all.

Do you want this to be a forum debating St Kilda football issues or a forum where posters go on endless bickering rampages that take up pages of the forum and no footy is actually discussed?

The vast majority of the people who left the forum (of their own free will) left because every time they posted they were abused / ridiculed etc or because they got sick of wading through endless bickering.

Most of that bickering has been stopped. Most of the posters responsible have been kicked out and currently cannot come back in.

And stats wise we have many hundreds of readers per day (sometimes can peak at around 2000) e.g. an hour ago 248 (actual members) were reading at the same time but only 7 logged on to post. You have to ask why?

The simple answer remains that this forum isn't trusted by old members (and current readers) as a place to express opinion without having it torn apart and insults thrown. This was like the wild wild west (including illegal bullying) previously and I would personally hate to see it to return to that BUT the result is that people are still happy to read but hesitant to post.

So if we open up the forum again (and let the trouble makers back in) ... what stops it from becoming the wild wild west again?

Nic bans - they just start another nic
I.P. bans - floating I.P.'s, VPN etc make this useless
E-mail bans - if we allow free e-mail servers to be used for registration then banned posters can get a new free email address and re-register a new nic

I don't have an answer, other than limiting new members to confirmed e-mail addresses and not allowing registration from free e-mail addresses

But I am more than happy for you to debate that topic.

Perhaps the current members want a free for all ... and if that is case, then there are serious ramifications for the site administrator.

Finally, I am not anti multiple moderators ... in my time have worked with 6 in total. All have quit do to the abuse they received. What does that say? How can that be fixed?

Anyway lets start with those big overriding topics.

Should I start a new thread for it?

[Wayne42]

Yes Simon, start a new thread as it's a new topic.

The TB appeal process is complete.

[Vortex]

I'm all for a new thread that opens up the discussion provided Simon you don't control what it is we discuss.

I would propose a committee type framework with equal voting powers on all matters as a starting point AND is transparent.

A transparent cooperative would seem appropriate for this type of forum that recognises all of it's members and the content they contribute is the most valuable commodity.

Let the discussion begin.

[st.byron]

FIRST THINGS FIRST

This is the greatest question of all.

Do you want this to be a forum debating St Kilda football issues or a forum where posters go on endless bickering rampages that take up pages of the forum and no footy is actually discussed?

The vast majority of the people who left the forum (of their own free will) left because every time they posted they were abused / ridiculed etc or because they got sick of wading through endless bickering.

Most of that bickering has been stopped. Most of the posters responsible have been kicked out and currently cannot come back in.

This.
Very easy to finger point at BFUSA when talking about the list of posters who have left.
In fact, he has done an excellent job of reducing the bickering and abuse. I for one wouldn't be here if the bullying and bickering was like it used it be. Many have left because of bickering and abuse.

Good idea to review the rules and procedures during the off season.

[markp]

[asiu]

now

is the time period for .... RELAX


(we've just done big work)

being conciliatory is important here

we have NO WHERE to rush to


lets just gentle up a tad ... its IMPORTANT

do a Ghandi ... be the change

[Vortex]

now

is the time period for .... RELAX


(we've just done big work)

being conciliatory is important here

we have NO WHERE to rush to


lets just gentle up a tad ... its IMPORTANT

do a Ghandi ... be the change

Well said

[asiu]

now

is the time period for .... RELAX


(we've just done big work)

being conciliatory is important here

we have NO WHERE to rush to


lets just gentle up a tad ... its IMPORTANT

do a Ghandi ... be the change

Well said

ta

coz i was aiming that at you

(and one other , best left un named)

[perfectionist]

There is little point in having a review of rules if some people think they can ignore them whenever they like. This whole "event" occurred because TB decided that the rules did not apply to him. The rule against making political comment in the Saintsational Fan Forum could not be clearer. It's at the very top of the page! That is aside from the issue as to whether the comment was a death threat or "just a joke". There are differing views on that.

The reason that the "no political comment in this Forum" was introduced was simply due to the hijacking of football related threads into political threads - with associated personal abuse along the way. The General Forum was restructured to allow for these politically oriented comments. The idea that you can have a rule free footy discussion forum is risible. As I am writing this, there are a couple of hundred people looking at the Forum, but only 4 are logged in. Most just want to see the latest Saints stuff, and not engage in endless disputes over whether player X is a dud or a champ or trade bait or whatever. On the occasions when they do log in and make a comment, they would expect that their opinion would be accepted without a group of three or four launching a personal attack as we have seen in the past. That's why we need rules. But as I said at the start, if people are determined to ignore them anyway, because they think that they have some sort of "right" to do so, well, it doesn't matter what they are.

I suggest that we put the incident behind us and just get on with it.

[The Fireman]

who could these magnificent men be ?? then we can all move on

[Dis Believer]

There is little point in having a review of rules if some people think they can ignore them whenever they like. This whole "event" occurred because TB decided that the rules did not apply to him. The rule against making political comment in the Saintsational Fan Forum could not be clearer. It's at the very top of the page! That is aside from the issue as to whether the comment was a death threat or "just a joke". There are differing views on that.

The reason that the "no political comment in this Forum" was introduced was simply due to the hijacking of football related threads into political threads - with associated personal abuse along the way. The General Forum was restructured to allow for these politically oriented comments. The idea that you can have a rule free footy discussion forum is risible. As I am writing this, there are a couple of hundred people looking at the Forum, but only 4 are logged in. Most just want to see the latest Saints stuff, and not engage in endless disputes over whether player X is a dud or a champ or trade bait or whatever. On the occasions when they do log in and make a comment, they would expect that their opinion would be accepted without a group of three or four launching a personal attack as we have seen in the past. That's why we need rules. But as I said at the start, if people are determined to ignore them anyway, because they think that they have some sort of "right" to do so, well, it doesn't matter what they are.

I suggest that we put the incident behind us and just get on with it.

Right.

And as I said, my joke (to refer to it as a "death threat" is so laughable as to not warrant a response) was in response to, and structured around, a prior post, yet no-one saw fit to report that post! Hence my view that "political" posts are only reported if someone objects to which side politics is being ridiculed. And again we see a black and white interpretation, which suits the political team supported in this instance. I did not "decide the rules do not apply to me" and I would thank you to stop pretending you can read my mind. I would have no issue in being pulled up if the thread was clearly a political slanging match and I was guilty of steering it that way. But it wasn't, there were two very low key, currently topical jibes that not one person responded to or was concerned enough to comment on, save for the one person that reported my post!

I understand exactly why the politics rules aspect exists, it's because hard-core supporters (from both sides, but predominantly the left in here) are incapable of sensible debate, because they doggedly support an ideology and think their side is always right, and the other side is always wrong. There has been almost no political debate in SS in the past 10 years, there has been only mindless cheerleading for one side or the other. That's fine, but I think the actual mechanism is wrong, and in part, because there is only one moderator, the work load would be unmanageable. The sensible solution is to simply move posts to the right area, or in extreme cases delete them.

[saynta]

I genuinely believe that this is an interesting discussion.

A few things

- I don't own Saintsational
- I am a caretaker only under the blessing of the owner
- The rules were done with community consultation and written based on the brief I received from the owner
- Before any sort of shutdown ever happened the keys to this place would be handed back to the original owner (he has a set anyway)

HOWEVER

There is nothing stopping us review the rules again.

We could do it quite systematically during the off season. Bit by bit we could debate each rule and alter it for the better or leave it.

We could also look again at what technological upgrades could be done to the site ... some I have proposed previously but were rejected.

FIRST THINGS FIRST

This is the greatest question of all.

Do you want this to be a forum debating St Kilda football issues or a forum where posters go on endless bickering rampages that take up pages of the forum and no footy is actually discussed?

The vast majority of the people who left the forum (of their own free will) left because every time they posted they were abused / ridiculed etc or because they got sick of wading through endless bickering.

Most of that bickering has been stopped. Most of the posters responsible have been kicked out and currently cannot come back in.

And stats wise we have many hundreds of readers per day (sometimes can peak at around 2000) e.g. an hour ago 248 (actual members) were reading at the same time but only 7 logged on to post. You have to ask why?

The simple answer remains that this forum isn't trusted by old members (and current readers) as a place to express opinion without having it torn apart and insults thrown. This was like the wild wild west (including illegal bullying) previously and I would personally hate to see it to return to that BUT the result is that people are still happy to read but hesitant to post.

So if we open up the forum again (and let the trouble makers back in) ... what stops it from becoming the wild wild west again?

Nic bans - they just start another nic
I.P. bans - floating I.P.'s, VPN etc make this useless
E-mail bans - if we allow free e-mail servers to be used for registration then banned posters can get a new free email address and re-register a new nic

I don't have an answer, other than limiting new members to confirmed e-mail addresses and not allowing registration from free e-mail addresses

But I am more than happy for you to debate that topic.

Perhaps the current members want a free for all ... and if that is case, then there are serious ramifications for the site administrator.

Finally, I am not anti multiple moderators ... in my time have worked with 6 in total. All have quit do to the abuse they received. What does that say? How can that be fixed?

Anyway lets start with those big overriding topics.

Should I start a new thread for it?

I am more than happy to maintain the status quo. Leave things as they are.

[Sanctorum]

now

is the time period for .... RELAX


(we've just done big work)

being conciliatory is important here

we have NO WHERE to rush to


lets just gentle up a tad ... its IMPORTANT

do a Ghandi ... be the change

Well said

ta

coz i was aiming that at you

(and one other , best left un named)